THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS BLOG IS TO SHARE WITH THE READER ISSUES OF HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE FROM A PROGRESSIVE PERSPECTIVE.
ORDER OF MOST READERS OF THIS BLOG: USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, UKRAINE,CANADA, INDIA,and CHINA.

Thursday, 6 August 2015

IS THE US LIKELY TO BECOME MORE DEMORATIC OR AUTHORITARIAN?

This
article
is part of a 13-question interview about American society that Jaime
Ortega, president of "The Daily Journalist"
conducted with me by submitting questions in writing. The essays with the first 11 questions are published below.

12. Jaime Ortega: If a third party
ascends to power is it doomed to be become an autocratic conundrum since
problems cannot be resolved with democracy alone shown by liberals and
conservatives? Is the US destined to become a dictatorship if things started to
crumble within the pillars of its own society?

JVK: There are those, including former president Jimmy Carter, warning that
the US is not a democracy because of “big money” dominance in elections. Others
point to the US “surveillance state”, curtailing on human rights and civil
rights in the name of national security, increased reliance on military
solutions to overseas crises and a militarized state that subordinates
democracy to national security. A country can be engaged in all of those things
and have a government ranging from Fascist to social-democratic. The American
reality is not as simple as many critics dismiss it and it is important to
consider the sources of anti-democratic aspects in a society that was founded not
on political, social and economic equality for that would socialism, but
equality of “opportunity” to become integrated into the bourgeois mainstream
for the white male population that dominated institutions at the end of the 18th
century.

On the one hand, the US has aspects that include police-state methods used
both in Guantanamo prisoners as well as blacks in Homan Square detention
facility in Chicago, both violating human rights and civil rights according to
US laws and international conventions. On the other hand, the US is a society
where there is legalization of gay marriage and marijuana, free speech and
freedom of petition and dissent. In other words, the categorical labeling of
the US as authoritarian runs into trouble considering that in many domains the
US remains committed to certain fundamental freedoms and it cannot possibly
compare to Fascist Italy in the 1930s, or South Africa before Nelson Mandela.

Categorizing American society becomes complicated and very complex behind the veneer of existing freedoms and rights of citizens, even as
stipulated in the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court decisions handed down
through the decades. In the absence of economic freedom all other freedoms are
necessarily limited as much in the US as in any other part of the world, more
or less democratic than the US. The large question is the degree to which
sovereignty rests with the majority of the people rather than with a small rich
minority enjoying control of mainstream institutions. If indeed sovereignty
rests with the majority and there are empirical indicators pointing to it, then
critics of America as undemocratic are wrong. If the US is a “corporatocracy”, then critics may be
correct.

Corporatocracy is rule by corporations, or at least preeminent influence of
corporations in all aspects of society from government to health and education,
thus obviating the role of the people as sovereign under what they understand
their role in the social contract. This phenomenon is not limited to the US,
but it is prevalent in many countries considering we live in a world of
multinational corporate domination that international financial institutions
like the IMF, World Bank and others support to remain dominant. The
neo-corporatist phenomenon that has taken hold under contemporary capitalism
projects the image of democracy because it maintains certain rights of citizens
while dominating the key institutions from government and media to health and
education.

The existing American political structure operating within the
neo-corporatist model is set up so that it only permits for a two-party system
that the entire institutional system supports explicitly or implicitly. The
political, economic, and cultural elites are an integral part of the two-party
system that starts from local politics all the way to the national level. The
Liberal-Conservative duality in American politics is not nearly as
heterogeneous as the politicians present it. Both major political parties
represent the same institutional neo-corporatist structure and both work within
a given framework. As domestic and international conditions may change, the
political parties make policy changes toward the right on economic and foreign
policy, and adjustments on the left when it comes to social-cultural issues
such as gay marriage and marijuana laws. This provides people with the illusion
that “democracy works”.

A third party coming along would need a popular base, a constituency that
is crying out for structural reforms as was the case in 1932 when Roosevelt ran
on a reformist platform amid the Great Depression that would in essence
strengthen the central government and absorb surplus capital from the private
sector to use for the state to stimulate growth and development. FDR did all of
this within the confines of the Democratic Party and as an extension of the Progressive
Era Democrat policies that Wilson has started. Instead of creating a third
party, he absorbed the leftists into his own party.

In today’s corporatocracy world, the only way that a third political party
would receive a wide appeal and not encounter nearly as much opposition from
entrenched political and socioeconomic elites and media is if “objective”
societal conditions are such that the third party is then able to overcome such
obstacles.

The scenarios under which a third political party could emerge are
as follows: 1. Left-leaning progressive party that tries to restructure society
on the model of social democracy not much different than FDR but reflecting
contemporary conditions; and 2. Extreme rightwing that could conceivably result
in an outright authoritarian government. Considering the US resorts to
police-state methods justified in the name of law and order and
counter-terrorism, the rightwing scenario would not be far from today’s
realities; and Both a left-wing and a rightwing political parties challenging
the mainstream and reflecting the socioeconomic polarization of society as the
rich-poor gap widens and the middle class becomes weaker results in one-party
neo-corporatist state under “national emergency” conditions. This would be a
form of authoritarianism and unlikely to emerge except under extreme conditions
of sociopolitical polarization tasking place against the background of foreign
crisis or crises.

The scenario of authoritarianism that took place in interwar Europe not just
Italy and Germany experiencing a crisis of their mainstream bourgeois political
parties amid very deep economic crisis, but all of Europe from Spain and
Portugal to Eastern Europe during the 1930s. While the US does not have a tradition
of Fascism, it does have a very long history of rightwing politics based on
racism, xenophobia, anti-Communism, Islamophobia, religious fanaticism, and
above all militarism and police-state methods, all of which are elements that a
third political party could combine to mobilize sufficient popular support to
take over local and state government positions initially, and eventually
national government.

Public opinion polls indicate that the percentage of
citizens that have confidence in their government is relative low in the mid-30s
vs. the number angry at their government in the low 70s. These public opinion
polls do not reveal whether these disgruntled citizens would support and
left-leaning or a rightwing government under certain conditions, but they
reveal the absence of support for the “middle-of-the-road” politics under
neo-corporatism. There are many reasons why people are at best apathetic to
angry with their government, but this is fertile territory for a populist
rightwing political party trying to mobilize this segment into a coherent
political force, backed by a segment of the business community, churches, and
other segments in society.

The scenario of a third party rooted in rightwing politics is much more
likely in America because a segment of the mainstream Republicans are already
there ideologically as is a large segment of the media and businesses and a
segment of churches and educational institutions dependent on the generosity of
conservative benefactors. One ought not to jump to conclusions that all capital favors rightwing
politics, just because it favors perpetuating its role in society. Capitalism
is indeed unified in its goals but capitalists are at odds with each other.
This makes the argument about what kind of regime would emerge in the future
more difficult because there were capitalists who vehemently fought against FDR
as there were others who went along with him, just as they had done with
previous presidents in the Progressive Era. Capital under the neo-corporatist model
has common interests but that does not necessarily mean that it has a common
strategy of how to achieve its goals.

While a leftwing orientation is indeed a leap of faith, it would hardly be
a leap of faith for America to go from the current status quo to an outright of
authoritarian system that would of course continue to claim it is “democratic”.
Such a system would be needed to impose social conformity of the masses to an
economic system that would benefit fewer and fewer people and an institutional
structure that would be largely for the economically-privileged in society.
Again, there are those who argue this is where America is today, but this is a
stretch at this point despite strong evidence favoring the thesis. However, if neo-corporatism
continues under neoliberal policies and the corporate welfare state and
militarism, then America will have some form of authoritarian government and
this may come from within the ranks of the Republican Party as a third party
alternative.

13. Jaime Ortega: Where
do you see the US in the next 10 years?

JVK: People judge the future on the basis of
the present. Their predictions are really revealing about what they see today.
Besides examining the past, there are empirical indicators pointing to changes
in the next ten years. As a larger percentage of Americans will be older –
16-18% as compared with 13% today – and as the white population will decline
while the Hispanic population will increase, society will be demographically
different in ten years and very different in 30 years when the convergence of
demographic, economic and political changes will result in a new society trying
to assert its identity based on its legacy rather than future prospects. According
to public opinion polls, Americans are not optimistic about where the country
will be in ten years, with about an equal number indicating it will be worse
off as better off. This is not to say that European feel much better about
their future, especially considering the uncertainty of integration, the
reality that Germany has imposed its hegemony over the rest, and the prospect
that China and Russia pose a threat to their historic political, economic, and
strategic preeminence in the world.

Most Americans believe that the growing sociopolitical
division will continue to grow for a number of reasons. College education will
not be affordable for the majority that has been experiencing downward social
mobility and will not improve in ten years. The economy will not be as good as
it once was to lift the majority toward the middle class as was the case after
WWII. Just one-fifth of Americans are confident their children will have good employment
opportunities and 80% are pessimistic as they expect the rich-poor gap to
increase and the top income earners to dominate politics. As the media and most
analysts are constantly reinforcing the idea that China will replace the US as
the world’s superpower, this is also reflected among the majority of Americans
who do not believe the US will perform as well in ten years because it is a superpower
in steady decline.

While Americans see tangible evidence in daily life of
the rich-poor gap and political divisions, they are convinced these will become
sharper as the nation’s global standing will decline.

They are optimistic that
new technology will continue to improve as would biotech and pharmaceutical
advancements but those would be expensive and affordable only by the rich.
There is also a sense that heavy private and public borrowing of the last two
decades will continue to put downward pressure on living standards. Thus, the
prospects for raising living standards are also hindered by debt. Not surprisingly, there is more pessimism among whites
than minorities because whites know demographic changes are rapid and will
change society to their detriment. It is significant to stress that Hispanics
are the most optimistic about their future in every respect, followed by
blacks, because they too see demographic changes but to their advantage.
Whether this actually becomes reality or the white majority mounts a
racist/xenophobic political movement of major proportions remains to be seen.

There are aspects of the larger picture that public
opinion polls miss. For example, the role of the US in ten years will depend to
some extent on the rest of the world. The decline of Europe and Japan as a
result of WWII necessarily meant the ascendancy of the US to world power
status, although the foundations for such a role were established in the last
quarter of the 19th century and during the Progressive Era. It is
entirely possible that a political crisis in China and/or other major power
sinks them into chaos and that lifts the US status, despite the incredible
interdependence of the world economy. More likely, the rapid development of
some countries, including Brazil, India, Russia, and Iran all siding in a bloc
with China that will have much of Africa and Asia integrated, would entail a
considerable weakening of the US in every respect. Capital is international and
the US-China interdependence cuts both ways, but current trends indicate more
in China’s favor than the US.

It is possible that the world’s population will reach
nine billion in fifteen years and it will need an additional 50% more food than
it does today to meet those needs. Expected to experience 10 to 15% percent
population growth (as high as 350 million), the US, which was the breadbasket
of the world from the late 19th to the late 20th century,
will lose its preeminent status. All indications are the Russia will capture
that position, as it will also become a major producer of minerals and energy.

One reason for
the East-West struggle over Ukraine is that it could become well integrated
with the West, and it could provide food security the West will need, although
this is a prospect that does not look promising so far. Monsanto Corporation
has already started working on genetically modified food production in Ukraine
as a backdoor to penetrate the European market. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)
and Cargill have also been very prominent in Ukraine’s primary sector of
production.

With US government support, the IMF and World Bank are
working in the Ukraine to make sure it moves toward greater integration with
the West to provide US multinational corporations the opportunity to dominate
key markets through which companies will remain dominant in Europe. The
Ukraine-type struggle for commodities markets will continue in the next ten
years. However, the price the US will pay for this kind of intervention is more
reliance on overt and covert military solutions to regional crises it creates
and greater drain of the US economy.

It is possible that the combination of the US energy
independence and new technologies could provide an impetus for the economy,
only if the state acts to absorb the surplus capital from the top 10% of income
earners to invest and develop human capital and human security as I have stated
above in relation to another topic. New scientific and technological advances
will do absolutely nothing except cause more problems than they solve for
society at large. America will remain in a mode of expansion that further
concentrates capital and expansion that further weakens the middle class and
the national economy. In other words, the expansionary cycles will not result
in income distribution toward the middle and lower classes because the FED
steps in to raise rates and slow down the economy that is overheating (inflationary),
thus keeping structural unemployment high.

Ihope that
America in 2025 will not have a repeat of 1925 when everything seemed just
great but the Great Depression was around the corner because serious structural
problems in the banking system, Wall Street speculation without any government
regulation, and the government’s role in the economy leaving business unchecked
as they demanded so they could make greater profits. The social structure in
America a decade from now will be about the same with even lower living
standards for the bottom two-thirds of society and even greater capital
concentration, given current trends.

I am also cautious that in the next ten
years there will not be a repeat of the deep recession of 2008, which was
cyclical but helped along by banking deregulation amid a trillion-dollar
war-bill from Iraq and Afghanistan. Having lost its preeminent global economic
status, the US will continue to use its military might as political and
economic leverage through alliances and bloc trade agreements that could
trigger conflict at the regional level. Looking at current international
relations, the future looks promising for creation of economic blocs that will
both cooperate and compete with each other and may even clash.

Though in a diminished form, the US will maintain its
global power status and it will continue to have one of the world’s top 20
living standards for its population. However, the expectation that Pax
Americana will once again experience its glory days of the early Cold War is
only real in the defense sector where American politicians will be focused as
the country will experience what some scholars view as a “Third World effect”
within the country. This is to say that conditions similar to those in
underdeveloped nations will dominate in pockets of American society as the
political class – Democrats and Republicans – will refuse to use the fiscal
structure to absorb surplus capital to centralize government in the manner that
FDR did so that there are not three America’s - one for the top richest ten
percent, the other of about 20-25 percent making up the middle class, and the
majority trying to make ends meet or hovering near or below the poverty line.
There is no doubt that as housing, education and healthcare become more
expensive, and as good paying jobs are limited to an ever shrinking percentage
of the labor force, more people will live in substandard housing, excluded from
good schools and hospitals, excluded from the American Dream.

Contrary to what many agnostics and atheists believe
about religion playing a lesser role in the future, I am convinced it will play
an even greater role, although different religions will reflect different views.
Pope Francis is the most recent prominent leader to have joined the struggle
for social justice, though from within the context of faith. “Men and women are sacrificed to
the idols of profit and consumption: it is the ‘culture of waste.’ If a
computer breaks it is a tragedy, but poverty, the needs and dramas of so many
people end up being considered normal.”

The views of religious leaders for social
justice may converge with those of political and community leaders demanding
not just reform within the system, but systemic change to overthrow the system.
While I do not see even a slight chance of revolution in America in the next ten
years, I do expect the increased
socioeconomic gap and political alienation of the majority to present fertile
ground for a grassroots movement that could rely on a variety of voices of
authority, including those of the Catholic Church and others that have
historically been the pillars of the status quo.

There will also be a sharp rise in convergence
of rightwing political elements, business people, and Christian extremists.
This is something that has deep roots in American society. The US war on terror
combined with Islamophobia that the media, Hollywood, talk-radio, and
politicians have been propagating religious rightwing activity is likely to
rise as people seek answers for calamities in society from those presenting
themselves closer to God, the flag and Wall Street.Religious violence is also a possibility in
isolated incidents. More likely is the prospect that Republicans will continue
to co-opt the religious right to justify the combination of militarism as a
solution to foreign policy problems and neoliberal and corporate welfare as
solutions to the economy. The polarization of America will be a major issue and
the challenge will be to forge consensus somewhere in the middle, which will be
more of the same without any solution to ending downward socioeconomic
mobility. The result will be a direction to the right more than it will be to
the democratic center and this means toward greater authoritarianism that will
serve to protect the privileged status of the wealthy and maintain American
military preeminence.

"A
gripping, passion-filled, and suspenseful tale of love, betrayal,
political and religious intrigue, this novel entices the reader’s
senses and intellect beyond conventions. Slaves to Gods and Demons
takes the reader through a roller coaster enthralling journey of
personal trials and triumphs of a family emerging vanquished and
destitute after World War II.

Narrated by a young boy, Morfeos, modeled after the Greco-Roman pagan
deity of sleep and dreams, the book reveals the soul of a people trying
to ascertain and assert their identity while rebuilding their lives and
recapturing the glory of a lost civilization.

Seeking liberation from restraints of time, social conventions, and
binding traditions, the deity of dreams provides the conformist and the
free-spirited characters in the novel with venues for redemption that
are mere paths toward illusions. Exploring the complexities of human
relationships shaped by priest and politician alike, the novel rests on
the central theme that life is invariably a series of illusions, some
of which are euphoric, most horrifying, all an integral part of daily
existence.

Striving for purpose amid life’s absurdities after the destruction of
western civilization in two global wars, the characters in Slaves to
Gods and Demons struggle between holding on to the glory and grandeur of
a pagan legacy and the Christian present shaped by contemporary
secular events in Western Civilization."